4 ms·

Someone at work shared this and I thought it was hilarious and awesome. A number of other people found it disrespectful or gross. I'm sort of fascinated at the

Someone at work shared this and I thought it was hilarious and awesome. A number of other people found it disrespectful or gross. I'm sort of fascinated at the values divide. I can see why SAG/ASTRA, or voice actors, aren't going to like this technology, but it doesn't feel all that different to any other industry swept away by tech, whether that's farming, horses and carriages, mining, etc. In other words, I can see the negative economic impact it will have on some people, which we may (or may not) want to protect via legislation, but I don't see how it escalates to a moral question. "Disrespectful" to me is flipping off David Attenborough, not getting a computer to amusingly narrate mundane things in a decent facsimile of his voice.

tolmasky 3y ago
How is it different than someone making a funny video where they impersonate David Attenborough? Those aren’t generally considered disrespectful, right? Like, I get the potential scale is different. But this is some joke video, not someone trying to actually replace David Attenborough or something.
- asylteltine 3y ago
  I agree and the difference is commercial rights and intent. Parody, jokes, etc are fine. Using this to replace him on a documentary, not okay. Fair use already covers this all they have to do is extend copyright protections to peoples likeness and voices
  - epolanski 3y ago
    > Using this to replace him on a documentary, not okay. I think it's legal if you're the copyright holder, e.g. Disney putting dead actors in their movies did not need anybody's permission, nor does any derivative work such as videogames as they own the image right to the characters they play. It would be interesting if they did a Planet Earth IV with Attenbrough's voice without his consent as David plays himself really...Not a fictional character.
  - lsaferite 3y ago
    > copyright protections to peoples likeness and voices What happens when you look or sound like someone (more) famous though?
curiousObject 3y ago
This demonstration is respectful. It’s funny. It’s obvious parody. But, the tech can be used to make disrespectful content. Look forward to: David Attenborough narrates porn. I don’t know what we can do. Ain’t no easy answers. But do we want courts and $Lawyers deciding what is respectful?
- Lord-Jobo 3y ago
  Courts and lawyers will do a bad job, and also the best job out of every option available. As it has been for 100 years.
  - argiopetech 3y ago
    I'm sure the Brits would claim since 1066.
  - spacebanana7 3y ago
    Voice cloning seems much harder to regulate with copyright than most other issues because 1) there's a continuous spectrum of vocal similarity 2) the tools of voice cloning are available to hundreds of millions of people 3) there may be several real individuals who could claim a voice similar to David Attenborough was also similar to theirs. Using trademarks seems like a more realistic means of regulation. Allowing David Attenborough to sue anyone that falsely and publicly credits him as a narrator seems feasible within existing law, and extending this to cover anti-avoidance tactics like "narrated in the style of David Attenborough" wouldn't be that much of an overreach.
    - themaninthedark 3y ago
      Didn't courts already rule that AI art is not infringing on the original works that it was trained on. I doubt that people are gonna be satisfied with the same voices, instead you will end up with David Attenborough mixed with Morgan Freeman and Patrick Steward. I can't wait to hear the new compelling ads using this technology and I anticipate the scandal when people realize that one of the very charismatic voices belongs to an Austrian who was born in 1933 because I guarantee that his voice will end up in the training data. Here is an idea for someone who like playing with this stuff, personalized entertainment. Pop songs sung by a voice that is a mix of Shakira, Brittany Spears and Lady Gaga, written by Chat GPT-4.
Arialonomus 3y ago
I think, as often, the truth lies down the middle. SAG/AFTRA and the WGA were right in fighting to not give studios free rein to use AI to own their likeness or replace them in the process. Likewise, people who say using AI tech for lighthearted fun like this is “disrespectful” are just having a kneejerk reaction at this point. I struggle to see a how this is different from say, a song parody.
- jpc0 3y ago
  Your entire friends group is sharing a really funny video with your voice reciting something, some manager get's upset about it and you have to explain to management how you had nothing to do with it. Even if you are fine with it, not everyone will be.

tolmasky 3y ago

How is it different than someone making a funny video where they impersonate David Attenborough? Those aren’t generally considered disrespectful, right? Like, I get the potential scale is different. But this is some joke video, not someone trying to actually replace David Attenborough or something.

asylteltine 3y ago
I agree and the difference is commercial rights and intent. Parody, jokes, etc are fine. Using this to replace him on a documentary, not okay. Fair use already covers this all they have to do is extend copyright protections to peoples likeness and voices
- epolanski 3y ago
  > Using this to replace him on a documentary, not okay. I think it's legal if you're the copyright holder, e.g. Disney putting dead actors in their movies did not need anybody's permission, nor does any derivative work such as videogames as they own the image right to the characters they play. It would be interesting if they did a Planet Earth IV with Attenbrough's voice without his consent as David plays himself really...Not a fictional character.
- lsaferite 3y ago
  > copyright protections to peoples likeness and voices What happens when you look or sound like someone (more) famous though?

curiousObject 3y ago

This demonstration is respectful. It’s funny. It’s obvious parody. But, the tech can be used to make disrespectful content. Look forward to: David Attenborough narrates porn. I don’t know what we can do. Ain’t no easy answers. But do we want courts and $Lawyers deciding what is respectful?

Lord-Jobo 3y ago
Courts and lawyers will do a bad job, and also the best job out of every option available. As it has been for 100 years.
- argiopetech 3y ago
  I'm sure the Brits would claim since 1066.
- spacebanana7 3y ago
  Voice cloning seems much harder to regulate with copyright than most other issues because 1) there's a continuous spectrum of vocal similarity 2) the tools of voice cloning are available to hundreds of millions of people 3) there may be several real individuals who could claim a voice similar to David Attenborough was also similar to theirs. Using trademarks seems like a more realistic means of regulation. Allowing David Attenborough to sue anyone that falsely and publicly credits him as a narrator seems feasible within existing law, and extending this to cover anti-avoidance tactics like "narrated in the style of David Attenborough" wouldn't be that much of an overreach.
  - themaninthedark 3y ago
    Didn't courts already rule that AI art is not infringing on the original works that it was trained on. I doubt that people are gonna be satisfied with the same voices, instead you will end up with David Attenborough mixed with Morgan Freeman and Patrick Steward. I can't wait to hear the new compelling ads using this technology and I anticipate the scandal when people realize that one of the very charismatic voices belongs to an Austrian who was born in 1933 because I guarantee that his voice will end up in the training data. Here is an idea for someone who like playing with this stuff, personalized entertainment. Pop songs sung by a voice that is a mix of Shakira, Brittany Spears and Lady Gaga, written by Chat GPT-4.

Arialonomus 3y ago

I think, as often, the truth lies down the middle. SAG/AFTRA and the WGA were right in fighting to not give studios free rein to use AI to own their likeness or replace them in the process. Likewise, people who say using AI tech for lighthearted fun like this is “disrespectful” are just having a kneejerk reaction at this point. I struggle to see a how this is different from say, a song parody.

jpc0 3y ago
Your entire friends group is sharing a really funny video with your voice reciting something, some manager get's upset about it and you have to explain to management how you had nothing to do with it. Even if you are fine with it, not everyone will be.